"Pete C." wrote:
>
> Mark Thorson wrote:
> >
> > "Pete C." wrote:
> > >
> > > Then how do you explain the fact that the data you cited showed that
> > > some farmed samples had lower levels than some wild samples?
> >
> > It's true that the very highest levels of contamination
> > found in wild fish were slightly higher than the lowest
> > levels found in farmed fish. Complete non-overlap of
> > these distributions is not a requirement for sayiong
> > tthat there's a huge difference in the contamination
> > of farmed vs. wild.
>
> And I pointed out the missing data on the sample distribution that makes
> your conclusion nothing more than an assumption.

That's wrong. I base my statements on the conclusions
of the authors of abstracts of papers published in
scientific journals. I have no doubt that their
conclusions are backed up by the data in the full
papers. The full papers are not available on-line.

The full papers are available at university research
libraries, but you are using their lack of availability
on the net to deny the authors' conclusions, namely
that the levels of contamination in farmed salmon are
high, and they are much higher than the levels in
wild salmon.

To accept your logic, one would also have to accept
that different research groups in different countries
adhere to the same practice of stating unsupported
conclusions in their abstracts -- conclusions which
are always damning to farmed salmon.

Unless there's a worldwide environmentalist conspiracy
against farmed salmon, this seems rather unlikely
to me, although not apparently to you.